Site Mobile Navigation

Letter From Bill Keller on The Times's Banking Records Report

The following is a letter Bill Keller, the executive editor of TheTimes, has sent to readers who have written to him about The Times'spublication of information about the government's examination ofinternational banking records:

I don't always have time to answer my mail as fully as etiquettedemands, but our story about the government's surveillance of internationalbanking records has generated some questions and concerns that I take veryseriously. As the editor responsible for the difficult decision to publishthat story, I'd like to offer a personal response.

Some of the incoming mail quotes the angry words of conservativebloggers and TV or radio pundits who say that drawing attention to thegovernment's anti-terror measures is unpatriotic and dangerous. (I couldask, if that's the case, why they are drawing so much attention to thestory themselves by yelling about it on the airwaves and the Internet.)Some comes from readers who have considered the story in question andwonder whether publishing such material is wise. And some comes fromreaders who are grateful for the information and think it is valuable tohave a public debate about the lengths to which our government has gone incombatting the threat of terror.

It's an unusual and powerful thing, this freedom that our foundersgave to the press. Who are the editors of The New York Times (or the WallStreet Journal, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post and other publicationsthat also ran the banking story) to disregard the wishes of the Presidentand his appointees? And yet the people who invented this country saw anaggressive, independent press as a protective measure against the abuse ofpower in a democracy, and an essential ingredient for self-government. Theyrejected the idea that it is wise, or patriotic, to always take thePresident at his word, or to surrender to the government importantdecisions about what to publish.

The power that has been given us is not something to be takenlightly. The responsibility of it weighs most heavily on us when an issueinvolves national security, and especially national security in times ofwar. I've only participated in a few such cases, but they are among themost agonizing decisions I've faced as an editor.

The press and the government generally start out from oppositecorners in such cases. The government would like us to publish only theofficial line, and some of our elected leaders tend to view anything elseas harmful to the national interest. For example, some members of theAdministration have argued over the past three years that when ourreporters describe sectarian violence and insurgency in Iraq, we riskdemoralizing the nation and giving comfort to the enemy. Editors start fromthe premise that citizens can be entrusted with unpleasant and complicatednews, and that the more they know the better they will be able to maketheir views known to their elected officials. Our default position — ourjob — is to publish information if we are convinced it is fair andaccurate, and our biggest failures have generally been when we failed todig deep enough or to report fully enough. After The Times played down itsadvance knowledge of the Bay of Pigs invasion, President Kennedy reportedlysaid he wished we had published what we knew and perhaps prevented afiasco. Some of the reporting in The Times and elsewhere prior to the warin Iraq was criticized for not being skeptical enough of theAdministration's claims about the Iraqi threat. The question we start withas journalists is not "why publish?" but "why would we withhold informationof significance?" We have sometimes done so, holding stories or editing outdetails that could serve those hostile to the U.S. But we need a compellingreason to do so.

Forgive me, I know this is pretty elementary stuff — but it's thekind of elementary context that sometimes gets lost in the heat of strongdisagreements.

Since September 11, 2001, our government has launched broad andsecret anti-terror monitoring programs without seeking authorizinglegislation and without fully briefing the Congress. Most Americans seem tosupport extraordinary measures in defense against this extraordinarythreat, but some officials who have been involved in these programs havespoken to the Times about their discomfort over the legality of thegovernment's actions and over the adequacy of oversight. We believe TheTimes and others in the press have served the public interest by accuratelyreporting on these programs so that the public can have an informed view ofthem.

Our decision to publish the story of the Administration's penetrationof the international banking system followed weeks of discussion betweenAdministration officials and The Times, not only the reporters who wrotethe story but senior editors, including me. We listened patiently andattentively. We discussed the matter extensively within the paper. We spoketo others — national security experts not serving in the Administration —for their counsel. It's worth mentioning that the reporters and editorsresponsible for this story live in two places — New York and theWashington area — that are tragically established targets for terroristviolence. The question of preventing terror is not abstract to us.

An error has occurred. Please try again later.

You are already subscribed to this email.

The Administration case for holding the story had two parts, roughlyspeaking: first that the program is good — that it is legal, that thereare safeguards against abuse of privacy, and that it has been valuable indeterring and prosecuting terrorists. And, second, that exposing thisprogram would put its usefulness at risk.

It's not our job to pass judgment on whether this program is legal oreffective, but the story cites strong arguments from proponents that thisis the case. While some experts familiar with the program have doubts aboutits legality, which has never been tested in the courts, and while somebank officials worry that a temporary program has taken on an air ofpermanence, we cited considerable evidence that the program helps catch andprosecute financers of terror, and we have not identified any seriousabuses of privacy so far. A reasonable person, informed about thisprogram, might well decide to applaud it. That said, we hesitate to preemptthe role of legislators and courts, and ultimately the electorate, whichcannot consider a program if they don't know about it.

We weighed most heavily the Administration's concern that describingthis program would endanger it. The central argument we heard fromofficials at senior levels was that international bankers would stopcooperating, would resist, if this program saw the light of day. We don'tknow what the banking consortium will do, but we found this argumentpuzzling. First, the bankers provide this information under the authorityof a subpoena, which imposes a legal obligation. Second, if, as theAdministration says, the program is legal, highly effective, and wellprotected against invasion of privacy, the bankers should have littletrouble defending it. The Bush Administration and America itself may beunpopular in Europe these days, but policing the byways of internationalterror seems to have pretty strong support everywhere. And while it is tooearly to tell, the initial signs are that our article is not generating abanker backlash against the program.

By the way, we heard similar arguments against publishing last year'sreporting on the NSA eavesdropping program. We were told then that ourarticle would mean the death of that program. We were told thattelecommunications companies would — if the public knew what they weredoing — withdraw their cooperation. To the best of my knowledge, that hasnot happened. While our coverage has led to much public debate and newcongressional oversight, to the best of our knowledge the eavesdroppingprogram continues to operate much as it did before. Members of Congresshave proposed to amend the law to put the eavesdropping program on a firmlegal footing. And the man who presided over it and defended it was handilyconfirmed for promotion as the head of the CIA.

A secondary argument against publishing the banking story was thatpublication would lead terrorists to change tactics. But that argument wasmade in a half-hearted way. It has been widely reported — indeed,trumpeted by the Treasury Department — that the U.S. makes every effort totrack international financing of terror. Terror financiers know this, whichis why they have already moved as much as they can to cruder methods. Butthey also continue to use the international banking system, because it isimmeasurably more efficient than toting suitcases of cash.

I can appreciate that other conscientious people could have gonethrough the process I've outlined above and come to a different conclusion.But nobody should think that we made this decision casually, with anyanimus toward the current Administration, or without fully weighing theissues.